Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Shanahan and the redskins need to get Banks the ball more
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Washington Redskins
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
turtle28


Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Posts: 64294
Location: MD/DC/VA depends on the hr!
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2012 10:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wait a second. How many turnovers does banks have in 2 years of playing football for us?

I can't think of any in a regular season game. Maybe, someone help me. Sometimes I misremember.

Seems like more reaching from the anti-banks folks to me. Rolling Eyes
_________________
RIP SSFmike23md

"God made certain people to play football... Sean was one" JG
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
THESKINSFAN21


Joined: 14 Jul 2011
Posts: 4442
Location: West Palm Beach
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2012 10:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

turtle28 wrote:
Wait a second. How many turnovers does banks have in 2 years of playing football for us?

I can't think of any in a regular season game. Maybe, someone help me. Sometimes I misremember.

Seems like more reaching from the anti-banks folks to me. Rolling Eyes

I trust him not to turn the ball over. I watched the second half of the bucs,game last night. Banks looked good on the deep pass and reverse. Very excited to see him torch the saints D. Cool
_________________

mike23md on the sig
Adopt A Redskin- Trent Murphy/OLB-1 Tackle
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Thaiphoon


Moderator
Joined: 03 Jan 2007
Posts: 15069
Location: Northern Virginia
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2012 11:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

e16bball wrote:
Thaiphoon wrote:
footy_29 wrote:
DCRED wrote:
As long as they remember that unless this shrimp is in space he is absolutely Worthless, even worse, a total liability with the ball... Then ok


Not absolutely worthless, but I agree that he is a huge liability. They'll target a returner in next year's draft if Aldrick cannot do it.


This...I like Banks. But we need a guy returning kicks that at some point we could play all game long at WR if we had a rash of injuries (a sign of a good/deep team). Not a good situation if Banks has to play the whole game at WR.


I'm not disagreeing that Banks is a liability as a full-time WR. I'm not saying the ship has sailed on that --- Jermaine Lewis, for example, became a capable WR2 or WR3 with more strength and experience at the position, and he was only 5'7, 172 pounds --- but he seems to struggle with the full repertoire of requirements of that position for the time being.

But how can a fan of the team that once employed Mike Nelms (and won a SB with him) believe that you can't have a dedicated KR? For that matter, we also won a SB with Brian Mitchell returning kicks exclusively in 1991. He got more reps on offense as the years went on, but early in his career he was a converted QB who didn't really belong as a full-time player anywhere.


Well counselor, I will answer your question with a question:

What's the difference between those teams and ours now? You tangentially answered it twice already.

Now you may understand why some people may be reticent about using a roster spot on a guy who can pretty much help you only on returns rather than someone who can not only do returns/ST's but also perform better at his position on offense (or defense if we're talking about a defensive player).

e16bball wrote:
As the roster is currently constituted, we have 6 "other" WRs. And we almost certainly will dress 5 "other" WRs. What are the odds that we face a situation where Banks is forced into duty? How many guys would have to get hurt? There is a huge barrier between Banks and "regular" WR duty. So huge, in fact, that it would take a veritable armageddon at the position to actually FORCE him into duty.


I'm not talking about a body bag game where all 5 WRs get banged up. Look at our WR corps last year. Gaffney was the only reliable receiver week in and week out. And he's getting up in years and is not an elite player (solid, but not elite).

I'm talking about how our WRs were banged up last year at different, and sometimes the same, time(s). At one point (due to Moss' injuries, Hankerson's injuries, AAA not being able to beat press coverage and Austin just not getting it, we had very little to choose from in terms of who we could play). At no point in the discussion of who is going to take up the slack was Banks mentioned. Why? Because he's only a returner with speed. He's not going to be a normal WR for you. I don't want, when we have injuries or players not performing, to automatically exclude a player on our roster (who supposedly plays the same position).

e16bball wrote:
I guess I don't understand where the big disagreement is here. When people talk about using Banks more, does anyone really mean let's have him run slants and 10 yard outs and fades in the end zone? There's no bigger Banks fan than me, and I'm certainly not in favor of deploying him in that way (especially over the likes of Hank and Morgan and even Briscoe).


Glad we agree.

e16bball wrote:
I thought we were talking about reverses and bubble screens and various routes stretching the field that are mostly all about speed. In other words, a few touches a game to take advantage of his straight-line speed and explosiveness. Is anyone really deadset against this? We were 14th in points in the NFC last season (outscoring the lowly Bucs by one point) and we're going to have a rookie QB with a shaky OL --- why would we be against an idea that would give us a chance for quick scores, make us a little less predictable, get the ball out of RGIII's hands quickly, and let our good blocking WRs get out ahead of an explosive runner?


Not deadset against it E. The problem is that people are banking on those "few touches a game" to justify a roster spot, on a team that won 6 games last year, for a return guy who IMHO can be dangerous in the return game (but not all that different from his competition in terms of starting position) and cannot play WR and is instead only useful on gimmick/trick plays on offense. We have speed in Robinson for those plays. Robinson, can also perform the other routes that Banks simply cannot. Which means the defense will not key in on the bubble screen or reverse when Robinson is in because they know its not coming. We are not the Patriots. we are not a playoff calibre team. If we were, I'd be right there with you advocating his spot on the roster. We do not have the luxury of keeping guys who cannot contribute on offense or defense (regardless of their speed).

Yes, Banks has speed and now that he's on the roster we should take advantage of that. But simply telling me that past playoff calibre teams of the Redskins (which also won SBs) who employed guys who could return the ball is a reason why Banks deserves a spot on a team that has a rookie QB, is rebuilding and hasn't had a winning season in years, is a stretch IMHO. BTW - we disagree on Mitchell a bit. Mitchell could actually run the ball on offense - and was our 3rd QB - so he had value as an offensive player if the starting RB went down. Banks has very little value at the WR position if we suddenly find ourselves needing his services.

Look, I like Banks. I cheer for him when he's in the game. But the Coach/GM in me disagrees that we can afford to keep players on the roster that cannot produce on offense or defense. Hopefully Banks proves that wrong this year. But if the past is any indication, he won't.
_________________


Being Vague Is Almost As Much Fun As That Other Thing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SeanTayorsaPIMP


Joined: 14 Oct 2006
Posts: 3598
Location: Boston, Ma
PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thai, I think the main difference between us here is that you see the Kick Returner position as a luxury where turtle, E, myself and some others see it as a necessity. I understand we aren't the NE Patriots or the NO Saints, but to me KR is a spot on the roster that shouldn't be taken lightly. It makes just as big of an impact on a game than any other position. The difference between starting on your 20 as opposed to starting on your 35 does astronomical things to the field-position game. Now I do know you realize this, so I'm not trying to insult your intelligence, I just think that we value a great return guy as a specific need and you see it as a luxury.

I think we've all taken a firm grip on our side of the arguement so I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here. I think this is one of threads where we just have to agree to disagree until we actually see how this season pans out.
_________________



mike23md on the sig!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thaiphoon


Moderator
Joined: 03 Jan 2007
Posts: 15069
Location: Northern Virginia
PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 1:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SeanTayorsaPIMP wrote:
Thai, I think the main difference between us here is that you see the Kick Returner position as a luxury where turtle, E, myself and some others see it as a necessity. I understand we aren't the NE Patriots or the NO Saints, but to me KR is a spot on the roster that shouldn't be taken lightly. It makes just as big of an impact on a game than any other position. The difference between starting on your 20 as opposed to starting on your 35 does astronomical things to the field-position game. Now I do know you realize this, so I'm not trying to insult your intelligence, I just think that we value a great return guy as a specific need and you see it as a luxury.

I think we've all taken a firm grip on our side of the arguement so I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here. I think this is one of threads where we just have to agree to disagree until we actually see how this season pans out.


I think you're missing my point. I'm not saying that a kick returner is a luxury. KR is a needed position. And I love Banks as a KR and PR and love what he can do there. I'm saying that on a team with 6 wins and is rebuilding and has needs in alot of places, that having someone as a KR who cannot contribute all that much in the other phases...is a luxury.

Hopefully he can find a way to contribute alot of offense this year.
_________________


Being Vague Is Almost As Much Fun As That Other Thing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
e16bball


Joined: 17 Dec 2004
Posts: 14996
PostPosted: Sun Sep 09, 2012 4:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thaiphoon wrote:
SeanTayorsaPIMP wrote:
Thai, I think the main difference between us here is that you see the Kick Returner position as a luxury where turtle, E, myself and some others see it as a necessity. I understand we aren't the NE Patriots or the NO Saints, but to me KR is a spot on the roster that shouldn't be taken lightly. It makes just as big of an impact on a game than any other position. The difference between starting on your 20 as opposed to starting on your 35 does astronomical things to the field-position game. Now I do know you realize this, so I'm not trying to insult your intelligence, I just think that we value a great return guy as a specific need and you see it as a luxury.

I think we've all taken a firm grip on our side of the arguement so I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here. I think this is one of threads where we just have to agree to disagree until we actually see how this season pans out.


I think you're missing my point. I'm not saying that a kick returner is a luxury. KR is a needed position. And I love Banks as a KR and PR and love what he can do there. I'm saying that on a team with 6 wins and is rebuilding and has needs in alot of places, that having someone as a KR who cannot contribute all that much in the other phases...is a luxury.

Hopefully he can find a way to contribute alot of offense this year.


I understand your point. But I think there are two points that aren't really being taken into account.

First, when you're talking about the point where the margin between cut/not cut exists, you're talking about players in the 50-60 range on your roster. These are 3rd-stringers, not guys you're really looking at as needs-fillers or significant parts of the rebuilding process. These are the guys we lost in the final cut-down, so ostensibly they're the guys we chose Banks over:

Anthony Armstrong, WR
Richard Quinn, TE
Dorson Boyce, FB
Tim Hightower, RB
Terrance Austin, WR
Grant Garner, C
Willie Smith, OT
Tristan Davis, RB
Erik Cook, C
Chris Campbell, OT
Jonathan Crompton, QB
Lenon Creer, RB
Sam Kirkland, WR
Lance Lewis, WR
Nick Martinez, OL
James Lee, OT
Tony Moll, OL
Beau Relliford, TE
Chris Cooley, TE
Marcus White, OLB
Darian Scott, DE
David Jones, CB
Brian McNally, LB
Marlon Favoire, NT
Brandyn Thompson, CB
Donnell Holt, LB
Delvin Johnson, NT
Bryan Kehl, LB
Morgan Trent, CB
Monte Lewis, LB
Travon Bellamy, CB

Really not much there that I personally see as likely to rise above the level of "future depth/role players." And the guys that I did hold out some hope for --- the likes of Brandyn Thompson, Markus White, Chris Cooley, Tim Hightower, Willie Smith --- all got outplayed at their position by multiple players. If Thompson could have beaten out Crawford, or White could have beaten out Wilson, or Willie could have beaten out Black, their names wouldn't be on this list. Essentially, we're talking about guys who couldn't win battles to be 3rd-stringers at their positions. I'd suggest the opportunity cost of rostering Banks was pretty low, in fact, given the "quality" of the players we lost.

The second point is that the functional roster during the season is much larger than 53 men. Yes, that's all you can carry into any one game. But on a weekly basis, you have access not only to the 8-man practice squad but also any and all current FAs looking for a team. So if, for example, we get into a pinch with injuries at WR, there will be options for filling the void that don't involve using Banks (if you're deadset against playing him as a WR). Jabar Gaffney, Donte Stallworth, Terrence Austin, and David Anderson (just for a few examples) are all without teams at this point, and all of them could step in on short notice to play some snaps for us if need be. And again, this only becomes and issue if and when we can't field a reasonable group of WRs out of the six players (aside from Banks) currently on the roster.

I don't disagree that it's better for roster flexibility if your return man can play another position. Would love to have a Patrick Peterson or Darren Sproles or Antonio Brown who could give us a dangerous return threat AND a capable option on plays from scrimmage. But plenty of teams have dedicated returners who exclusively handle return duties --- last season a few examples were DET with Logan, BAL with D. Reed, TEN with Mariani, ATL with Weems, CIN with Tate, etc. --- and not all of them are super-deep rosters either. Which is not to mention that plenty of "raw" players who started as pure return men eventually develop into capable offensive threats (Devin Hester, Leon Washington, Josh Cribbs, Joe McKnight, perhaps Randall Cobb) at least in certain roles.

Even if he never takes an offensive snap, our KR/PR will have the ball in his hands 5-6 times per game. Aside from RGIII and the back du jour, there probably won't be another player on the roster who gets that many opportunities in each game to make a play. Maximizing your output from that position IS valuable, and it's worth keeping a guy even if that's all he does. Hell, we've all agonized over placekicker decisions for the past couple seasons. And the difference between mediocre and elite there is, as I showed in the Cundiff thread, somewhere between 3-10 points over the course of the season. Do we really think an elite return man, between improved field position and increased potential for a quick-strike TD, isn't worth something similar or more?

NOTE: That last bit of analysis assumes that Banks will be an elite return man. If he struggles or continues to having fumbling issues, he may not be that and the value of keeping him solely for that role may be limited. But I'm (mainly) arguing that IF we believe he can be a top-flight (say, top 7-8) KR for us, it's worth keeping a dedicated roster spot for him.
_________________


O.J. Atogwe Tracker: 25 Tackles | 1 INT | 2 PDs | 2 TFLs | 1 sack
Saverio Rocca Tracker: 44.2 AVG | 41.2 NET | 14/25 IN20
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Washington Redskins All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group